Small World Project- Columbia University

[Stormwind]

This is an interesting project at Columbia University

Main Small World Website at Columbia (http://smallworld.columbia.edu/)

Details, Press releases, Privacy Policy etc. (http://smallworld.columbia.edu/project.html)

"Kevin Bacon, the Small World, and Why It All Matters" (http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletinFall99/workInProgress/smallWorld.html)

[theyeti]

That's really neat. I just might have to sign up for that...

[jamesglewisf]

That's funny. I hope tax dollars aren't paying for it though.

[Stormwind]

Well, is Columbia University a private university or a public one?
There is an institute at Columbia which is funding this I believe- The Institute for Social and Economic Policy and Research... link here. (http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/) They may get some of their money from government sources.

But honestly, would you stop all research at all public universities or only let tax dollars be spent for the very few that have some application that can be immediately seen and understood by the general population? I think that could be terribly limiting to all research everywhere.

This particular question is one of interest to social researchers (see the why it matters article). It could be the basis for a great number of other answers to questions that I can think of off the top of my head and not ONLY about social networks and their connectedness with each other. There are potential questions the government- any government- might want answered that this research could give at least partial answers to. I think it would be just fine if the funding was public.

[theyeti]

This was on the news here last night. They said that only 2% reached their target in 6 emails. Of course, there is a flaw in that statistic, being that there's probably a lot of emails that didn't get passed on to someone else.

They didn't say what percentage of chains reached their target, no matter how long it took. I wish they would've, then the first statistic could be put into a better context.

I think it'd be just fine if the funding was public too. I find it interesting when the money I give up - YES, I do pay taxes :D - goes to something different, rather than the same old boring programs.

As long as it's not too large of an amount. I'm not sure what the budget would be for that kind of a project, so I couldn't throw out a dinero figure, but if there's more pressing, urgent research that's not getting close to the money they need... that deserves the moolah first.

[Stormwind]

2% is disappointing, since one is supposed to use contacts that one really knows. But you do have to factor in that 'just didn't get around to it mentality' that happens in people's busy lives. I answer email pretty quickly, but lots of the folks I know, including family members, don't.

I haven't looked at the statistics on the site to see what they are posting, but I am assuming that your news report got their info from the press releases or the info on site.

Cool that it made your news though.

And I agree about government funding and who gets what- of course certain things should get priority funding. But there is a set aside for social research as well as lots of non governmental funding that is available. Funding is a subject that has a lot to do with who one knows, who one is "connected to" and how good a job is done by the grant request writers.

[Grimey]

I think in a day when we have politicians screaming about budget deficits and fiscal responsibility, we should not be spending tax dollars on something like this. Go raise private funds for it.

[theyeti]

The problem with that is, when raising private funds for a somewhat off-the-wall project as this (and this isn't really all that off the wall), is that most people will dismiss the project as "oh - what's the point of that? it's just silly" and unless you have a big donor or two, that project will get scrapped.

And wham! There aren't anymore offbeat science columns! :D

[Stormwind]

How connected we are to each other is a really prime social science subject and worth knowing for a lot of people including those who run the government. How connected we are also has something to do with how well trusted information gets passed along without the intervention of the media. I am not talking about email forwards full of rumor, but real information that doesn't make the cut on broadcast and cable and if it is printed is on page 17 at the bottom. What sort of networks we all form and how interlinked they are, tell something about society and the direction policy makers might want to take or pay attention to- or NOT do.
It isn't frivolous nor is it offbeat or junk science. WE depend on our connections as humans and the more social scientists know about them, the better they can do their jobs and help others do theirs- including psychologists, social workers, police, politicians etc.

[Grimey]

We have somehow survived thousands of years without studies to tell us how well connnected we are. I don't think it is really that critical.

I'm surprised that we are even discussing it. We have SARS, West Nile virus, cancer, heart disease, civil wars, starvation, mud slides, hurricanes, alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, snipers, high unemployment, terrorism, etc. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of more important things on which we could spend public dollars.

[Grimey]

{offtopic}

If you can't raise private funds for a project, it is probably because there isn't much value in it compared to other projects. This is the greatness of capitalism.

Life is full of competition, and this is a good thing. Competition separates the good from the bad, high quality from poor quality, high value from poor value. It doesn't always work perfectly, but you know what, life doesn't always work perfectly. Life isn't fair.

Giving projects like this public funds instead of making them fight to survive on private funds is somewhat akin to the trend of not keeping scores in chldren's sports because you don't want anyone to lose. We don't use SATs or grades because we don't want anyone to feel bad. Then we graduate people who can't compete for a job, and they think that employment is an entitlement. Fight for your private funds, and if you can't get any, then you failed to succeed. Try something else.

Giving public funds is really taking private funds away from individuals (you and me) who might have wanted to spend it on food, clothing, cars, music, whatever; and then giving it to other individuals who use it on what they want -- research projects. Now how right is that?

Spend my money on police, fire, armies, etc. Don't spend it on research projects for social science.

[theyeti]

You're right. It isn't critical.

But it's cool!

Life would be pretty boring if all we worried about was SARS, West Nile, and so forth. Safer perhaps, but boring. (This is, in a way, the same kind of argument I made in the smoking thread, but not exactly...)

I think you are right, Stormwind - we do depend greatly on our connections as humans. I think what I said earlier might've came off the wrong way, implying that it wasn't really that important at all. I might be wrong about that.

For instance, as many of you may know, I am a nut. :D As a nut, I would like to be able to go to a physchologist and hear something other than:

"You need to learn how to make friends better." or
"Here is the name of a doctor. Go to him so he can prescribe you something."

We are always complaining about how politicians don't know what "real," mainstream people are like - maybe the social sciences can help solve that problem, and in turn the politicians are better able to deal with the kind of crises Grimey mentioned.

[Stormwind]

"...the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy Research Development Office (RDO) promotes faculty-led and develops ISERP-led externally-funded research projects. For investigators, the RDO offers comprehensive grant support by providing individualized assistance in seeking funding, submitting proposals, and administering grants. The RDO also keeps abreast of developments in human subjects certification policy, in NSF/NIH policies and programs, and in the programmatic interests of major foundations...." From the Institute funding this research (http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/services/services/research_development.html).

I doubt this is all government funding- maybe even none. I don't know why there is any objection to any social science funding done by the government, but rest assured there are tons of places that fund studies like this that don't use tax dollars. We may have survived centuries of not knowing, but the times were different and the populations were smaller. When dealing with social science research, one needs to look at a larger application than just the initial question. Often one small project that produces quantifiable information leads to other projects that come closer to being able to be understood in their use by the general population. Some might not see any larger applications in this, or any need to know, but I do.

I doubt this particular study requires a huge amount of funds, nor do I believe that it draws funds away from more critical research needs. All the critical research areas have their own special budgets and grants from the federal government as well as private organizations. Fortunately social science research has enough applications and enough interested parties to survive and draw grants from a variety of sources, including but not limited to government interests.

[Alec]

IMO - interesting, but wasteful.

[theyeti]

So the only things that deserve funding are things that have an immediate impact on people's extremely basic needs? We shouldn't go any further than providing food, shelter, and health? Think about all the stuff with less application to society than this (which I think has quite a lot more than many people realize, and really doesn't require that much of a budget in all likelihood anyway) - if this is wasteful, what do the athletics or the arts or so on qualify as?

Yes, I know there are budget crises all over the place right now, but... let's abolish the money system altogether! {evil} oops... that's a different topic I suppose...

[Alec]

The proplem is that it is OPM. Who cares what we spend it on, it's not our money. I know that the politicians aren't thinking that directly, but that is the attitude they show.

If the federal government had to give an accounting of how it spent tax dollars the same way a public corporation does, its shareholders (taxpayers) would go balistic. For that matter, if most public corporations were actually private corporations, a lot less money would be wasted there too.

Let me just give you a simple example. A common practice in large companies is to automatically replace PCs on a 3 year rotation. It doesn't matter that a particular user might be happy with the PC he currently has, it is going to be upgraded. Why? Because it is other people's money (OPM). If it were an individual deciding how to spend his own money, he might decide that 350 of his 400 PCs could last 4-5 years while he upgrades the 50 for his biggest power users. It might be more work to evaluate machines, but it saves a ton of money - the owner's money. Why don't people do it? Because it isn't their money.

Why do we spend billions on all kinds of things that most individuals wouldn't spend $5 on? Because it is OPM.

[Stormwind]

That's just not always true. The fact that it is OPM doesn't mean that the Universities aren't paying attention to their budgets. They have to stay within particular limits.

And in the case of replacing computers at companies- there is an accounting line that lists the value of the computer- when it is depreciated fully- it is no longer useful as an asset. It may work fine, but it doesn't have a monetary value to the company. It often makes more sense to replace it.

In this particular case, it is doubtful that it is "government money" directly that is funding this project.

University research is for advancing knowledge. period. That knowledge doesn't necessarily come with an immediate practical application- but some of it does. We haven't advanced as a society or even as a world, because everyone was thinking about only the practical applications. There are a lot of things that were learned and "invented" because people were seeking a better way to do things. But once daily life was no longer about simply the struggle for immediate survival, the quest for understanding and the search for knowledge propelled things and in many cases it was the search for knowledge that came first and the practical applications later.

Some university research may someday save your life or the life of someone close to you.. Some of it, may not save your life, but may make life easier some day, for many or maybe only a select group. Some of it may only explain the world around you in a better sort of unified theory of things. Some of it is designed to teach future researchers how to design a proper study and how to do research- so they can go on to find knowledge in new frontiers-- that may someday do all of those things.

If you limit university research only to the things with immediate practical application you limit future growth and potential.

[theyeti]

In regards to OPM:

Suppose I am receiving financial aid (other people's money) to go to college. Should I take a poll of the taxpaying citizens in my area to see which classes they want me to take?

[Alec]

I wasn't talking about whether or not the schools watched their budgets closely. I was talking about the government giving grants to research projects that private companies would probably never fund because they have little or no value. The government doesn't care whom they give the money to because it isn't their money.

[theyeti]

I don't see what the difference is - I mean, the state will probably give me money to go to college... if I'm trying to become an artist, or a musician, or a historian, those things have little or no value to the average person and I doubt I could get a private company to fund my studies (which, essentially, is one big research project) :)

[Stormwind]

and this particular little study may or may not be funded by the government.

Schools have a process where research is proposed and approved or disapproved - so that money isn't spent without oversight- no matter if it is general purpose money given to the university or specific grants from the government or the private side. There is a process where various departments can apply for grants directly to the various government agencies funding research for specific projects.

The government gives certain grants under some similar restrictions. There are budgets set up under various departments to fund certain types of research and then they "call" for people to apply under their rules for projects within certain specified areas (the NIH and HHS grant programs are examples of this).

I wouldn't say these departments don't care because it is OPM. They do care and only fund things that they have an expressed policy interest in paying for. The rules may be different in different departments, but I think for the most part there are few government grants handed out directly that are not for specific intended applications.

As to the universities, there are fewer and fewer pure research projects that are approved these days with general funding, that don't have an immediate practical application. This is because the general public doesn't understand the whys and hows of the progression of pure knowledge and how it is crucial for the advancement of civilization. So the limited view side is winning.

[Alec]

And btw, I don't think your depreciating asset theory works.

Even if you have an asset whose value has depreciated to zero, it is always cheaper to hang on to it than to go buy another to replace it today. Let me just give you an example.

If I spend $1,500 today and get to write it down on my books at $500 a year, then I am spreading that cost over 3 years. That means that at the end of the first year I have a $1,000 asset and $500 in expense. At the end of the second year I have a $500 asset and $500 in expense. At the end of the third year I have a $0 asset and $500 in expense.

If I turn around and immediately buy another computer, then the process starts over and I continue to have the $500 expense. If I wait one year, then for that year I saved $500. Over a 12 year period, I save $1,500. That doesn't sound like much until you buy 350 computers. Then you are saving $52,500; and that doesn't even include the possible investment earnings.

[theyeti]

Alec, you are forgetting that if you buy a new Gateway computer every three years over a 12 year period, you have 400% more cow-boxes that when you started!

Now that's my kind of statistics.
{madcow}

[Alec]

I still say that if tomorrow you lowered my tax expense by $1,500 a year and I got to determine which charities I was going to give to and which ones I wasn't, or whether I was going to spend the money on groceries or the down payment for a car, then a lot of government-funded research to study the migratory patterns of the south african cockatoo or whatever would go away. And in my opinion, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Ornithological Society might think that studying the migratory patterns of the south african cockatoo is a good idea, but they should find like-minded concerned citizens who donate money and let them pay for it.

Quit taking my tax dollars and funding whatever some bureaucrat thinks is a good idea.

[Alec]

And btw, I'm not saying that this project uses any government money. I just don't want it to.

[Stormwind]

Originally posted by Alec
And btw, I don't think your depreciating asset theory works.

....

What you forgot was that you can't deduct the expense of a new computer from your taxes, but a business can and does. For those who set up a policy to replace computers on a regular schedule, you can bet that they have determined that they save more by being able to deduct it as an expense from profits, than they do by not buying. Good bean counters don't overlook such things. They have it figured to the penny which policy actually saves them more money, in the short term and the long term.

[Alec]

That's the same logic people use who say you shouldn't pay off your mortgage early because you'll lose a tax deduction. It doesn't work.

You never save money by spending it to get a tax savings. If my expenses are $1000, that lowers profit by $1,000. That means I don't have to pay tax on that $1,000. In other words, I might save 35% of $1,000. That makes my true cost $650, but I still am out $650. I have $650 less money then I would if I did nothing.

It never saves you money to spend money on something you don't need because of a sale or a tax benefit.

[Stormwind]

Newest twist on an application of the small world concept- Space, Society, and Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_031009.html).

I presume this project is being paid for by the "International Astronautical Congress", but indirectly there could be tax dollars involved.

The whole concept of knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone etc. is also being taken commercial with the various professional and friend networks, wikis, and other new applications on the internet for forming groups with real life connections- for a variety of purposes.. someone starts it with a few of their close connections, who invite a few of their close connections, who invite... and so on. It looks to be a new variation of the old social/professional networking concept with the small world/Kevin Bacon type twist.